 Whatever everybody to this final day session on Asian security. It's a very hot topic at the moment. We all know that later today in Washington we've got new President of the US about it to be sworn in who said some fairly unorthodox things for some fairly hardling things about security in Asia and about trade and economics as well. I think that will set a new context ...felly mae'r clywedau sy'n cymryd i'r cyfnod ar fawr, a'i gynhyrchu sy'n cyrraedd oedd y Chynau South. Mae'r cyfnod ar y Chynau Rydym. Yn ystafell gofyn i'r cyfeirio ddim yn y prif i'r cyfnod... ...fyniadau'r cyfnodau sy'n cyfnod er mwynhau i'r cyfnod... ...y'r cyfnod sy'n cyfnod ardangos i'r cyfnod. Felly mae'r cyfnod er mwynhau'r cyfnod. Rwy'n defnyddiad i'r cyfnod. Ieft, Vivian Balakrishnan, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, there. Siw ti'r deall isio i chi Ffunibashi, who is Chairman of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, and also one of Japan's most experienced commentators on foreign affairs. Professor Lee Jun from Seoul National University, specialist in international relations, and Llew Hut Panjaitan, the Minister of Maritime Affairs from Indonesia. Welcome to you all, and welcome to the audience, and indeed to anyone watching online. So let me get straight into it. Foreign Minister, it seems to me it's a slightly tense time to put it mildly, not just because of Trump, but because of the tensions that we've seen building in the South China Sea, growing alarm about North Korea. The Singaporeans always noted for thinking calmly and rationally, so if you can give us your take on how things sound. The first thing I want to say is that I don't view this as a tense time. I think there's some uncertainties, in fact there's some major uncertainties. We've got a new president about to take his oath, and I think the first thing is we should take him seriously, but I've been advised not to take it literally. So let's judge him, his administration, and his policies by actions rather than by words. So I think I would describe this as an expectant time. It's kind of weird though to say let's, I mean I know what you mean, but to say well let's just ignore what the President of the United States says because it's obviously nonsense and we'll just see what happens. No, no, that's not the case. I wouldn't characterise it at all. But I think the point is that he's an intelligent man, he's clearly responding to a political imperative, domestic, and I think he in his own way is going to exercise policy imagination. And you have to be prepared for novel approaches. So that's the way I look at it. It's not to just be dismissive at all, but to accept that there may be things which we have not yet thought of. It may not be the conventional approach, but we've got to learn to live with it. If I could give you a perspective from, you need to understand we're talking about South East Asia and we're talking about ASEAN, I mean with the exception of Indonesia, the rest of us are small nations in the case of Singapore or the city-state. So what is it we actually want, what we're hoping for is to have a balanced and open and inclusive regional architecture. Now those adjectives are important, balance, open and inclusive architecture. And this is a design, is a strategic design that even goes beyond defence and security. So what does that mean? In reality, it means we want to avoid zero-sum games. We don't want to be forced to choose to take sides. I think if we ever get to that situation, it's bad for all of us. Second, we want it to be open. And one clear thing here is this commitment to free trade, open trade. It's not really about the individual free trade agreements, but it's really that if you look at the past 40 to 50 years, since the end of the Second World War, since the end of the Vietnam War, if you look at the opening of China in 1978, opening of India in 1991, and if you look at the progress that's been made throughout Southeast Asia, we have made enormous strides because we've had open free trade, we were able to plug into the global economy, and we've had peace and stability. So that's actually our paramount objective because we know that this formula has worked. And having stability, having access to an international regime, international law, and as Presidency has said, looking forward to improvements in global governance, this is the best possible outcome for us. Minister, I mean you've just been pointed out Indonesia is the big country in Southeast Asia, and that's always given it a slightly different perspective. How do you look ahead to the security challenges over the next year or so? Let me begin with what happened in Indonesia the last two years. I think we concentrate to improve our economy, which is I think very important. If you don't have a good domestic thing, then I don't think this is the right time for us to go overseas. So right now our economy grew last year. It was 5.1 percent and I think also the inflation is very good. 3 percent and also poverty rate also good and etc. Giving some more confidence within the country, number one. Number two, I think we are successful also to see the equality programme of the government. We are not talking also only the growth of the economy. We are also looking at how to see the equality. Equality meanings, we have 74,000 villages. So we call it village funds. So every village, this government give a budget to move the economy within the village. Why with this one is very important because 230 million Indonesian population is Muslim. So we have to treat them well. Otherwise, you're going to see some radicalism within the country. This is the potential threat. If you don't manage this well, then it's going to be another big issue in the near future. So then we spend some much time to tackle this one. And now we believe we are ready in the inside of this issue. So we are very confident growth and equality is moving in the same direction. So just to spell it out, so you're saying when you think of security, you think primarily of internal security and Islamist radicalism, first of all, rather than the broader reason? Well, not necessarily saying like that, but because we watch this very carefully, is when I was minister, courting minister for security affairs, I have a good meeting also with my counterpart in Beijing. And I think a stand of government in Indonesia very clear. We don't recognize a nine dotted line because, you see, this is, yeah, because they claim about the Chenghu and about, you know. This is the famous Chinese nine dotted line. We said we don't recognize that. We recognize Unclos 1982, which is a thing, the very basic thing that we have to respect by everybody. We don't want to see any projection power, power projection in the area. Whether this is American or whether this is Chinese, we want to see peaceful solution over there. People say to me that Indonesia has become a bit more hard line on this over the last year that other... Not necessarily hard line, but to make sure that everybody understand, we are not going to negotiate about... More assertive then that you've been willing to stand up... Yeah, we're not going to negotiate about our sovereignty. That's one I have to make it clear. So that's why illegal phishing, this is we take care very much. We don't want to see this happen anymore. Before, we don't have this kind of policy. Today, very clear. The message is very clear. We don't want to deal with this anymore. But we respect international law. That's a very important thing. If you don't respect international law, it's going to happen. So back to South China Sea. South China Sea is an issue. If you look at the size of Indonesia, maybe you don't know where. When I met with Prime Minister Abe, I mentioned the size of Indonesia from Merauke to Sabang is eight hours flying time. While Jakarta to Tokyo only six hours to 20 minutes. So you see the size, you know. You see the difference, you see the diversity. So to manage Indonesia, we need the strong leader. Now the beauty of Indonesia, because President Jokowi give a good example, lead by example, never happened before. You can check and run the business done by the family whatsoever. So everybody cannot complain to him. And he dare to make up his mind. He dare to make a decision even sometime. Like subsidy. We took it out the subsidy. We just make our fiscal rooms very good. Now our state budget moving very well. So we are located more and more budget for infrastructure to improve the quality of infrastructure. Meaning what? Bring more efficiency within the country. Which is I think one of the topic, one of the biggest enemy of Indonesia is inefficiency. Okay. Professor Lee, when people talk about security in Asia and particularly the Americans now, often top of the list is North Korea, you're sitting in Seoul, we heard that I think that Obama is meant to have told Trump that the number one issue facing America in security terms is now North Korea. Does it feel to you like that issue is reaching a kind of crisis point? Well I don't think North Korea is going to make a lot of, I mean further more threats that we cannot perhaps stand. North Korea nuclear program has been with us for many many years. Of course they're going to do more tests. They're going to improve their missile technologies. They're going to miniaturize their nuclear bombs. That they will do. But those things are not very new. Of course the nature of the threats might change. But we have been able to manage North Korea problem. It was like a cancer. We also have in East Asia a lot of threats such as territorial disputes between South Korea in Japan, China in Japan, East China Sea, South China Sea. So those threats are not really new. These are not new challenges. We have been able to manage those things. And the leaders are probably, will be the same. President Xi Jinping will be there. Prime Minister Abe will be there for many many years. And we're going to have new leaders in South Korea. But what he will do or she will do may be very predictable. But Kim Jong-un will also be there. So North East Asia, I think it's going to be pretty much the same. So the new challenge will come not from within but from outside. And this time I think it's going to come from the USA. So what you're saying or you're implying is that you're more worried about the Trump administration's reaction to North Korea than about North Korea itself. Yes, I am. I'm very worried about President Trump's reaction to North Korea because probably Trump administration will face a kind of legitimacy crisis or leadership crisis. His leadership will be challenging from within and from without as well. There will be a lot of resistance, a lot of criticisms, a lot of non-cooperation from within, from outside. Then if the government is a populist government, I do think that it may well be a populist government, that in order to recover from the leadership crisis, Trump administration might create some kind of crisis or escalate tension somewhere. And in North East Asia, we have a lot of outlines and North Korea is one of them. So I'm very worried that the Trump administration might take advantage of it. But you, I mean, just to pursue this point and then I'll come to Mr Funibati, I mean, some Americans would say, and on a bipartisan way, not just Republicans, it's intolerable for the United States to have to face the idea that North Korea, a regime like North Korea can have a nuclear missile that could hit the West Coast of the United States and they're worried that that could be a couple of years away. Are you saying that they should just live with that in the way that South Korea has lived with the North Korean nuclear threat? Well, at the moment, in South Korea, we have a power vacuum. North Korea, very strangely enough, doesn't do anything. It has been very quiet. So that means Kim Jong-un, leadership is very rational. And secondly, Kim Jong-un leaders can be intimidated by the international society. So that means they can be deterred. So in other words, we can manage this problem. Of course, we should solve it, but for the time being, we have to manage North Korea. OK. Mr Funibati, let's talk about how Japan sees things because trying to make sense of where the new administration is going to go on Japan is tricky because at various points, Trump has suggested that he's not that interested in the U.S. Japan Security Treaty that maybe Japan itself should go nuclear. Mr Abe did something very skillful in that he was one, I think the first foreign leader to get to see Trump inside Trump Tower and got some kind of reassurances, but not, I would say, totally reassuring. So how do things, this whole panoply of issues, but in the framework of a new U.S. president, how does it feel in Tokyo as you look out? I think Tokyo is very much deeply concerned about Trump administration's trade policy or trade non-policy on top of this alliance management issues. And the trade is increasingly entwined with security issues as Trump has reframed that, that trade issues and security issues in very much combining way. So we can call it the Joe economics thrust in Trump administration formulating foreign policy. And I think Tokyo is very much deeply concerned about the trade war actually taking place if Trump's rhetoric on words would translate into actions and policies. And trade waned at Japan as much as at China? I think so. I think that trade wars will not stop at just two big giants. And I think it inevitably will spill over into that Asia-Pacific region, particularly in Japan, I think. But the day before Trump's victory, Japanese law house passed, ratified the TPP. So the Tokyo pin, the great hope on TPP to promote that regional integration and regional order. Now TPP is collapsing. So I think that's they have emerged some vacuum in terms of a regional order vision right now. So I mean I've sensed obviously you're concerned about Trump and the kind of direction he's taking. And yet what options does Japan have in security terms other than the United States given the depth of concern in Japan about the rise of China? I think there is no other alternative to U.S.-based security system and framework in the region. And there is no substitute for that alliance system to ensure that peace and security in the region. This region is still a jungle, a rule of the jungle prevailing as illustrated in North Korea as well as Taiwan perhaps. So I think that's the best hope for Tokyo would be to sustain that alliance system as much as possible to prevent that alliance system from being compromised by this geoeconomic short-term tactical calculations emanating from Washington. Okay. So foreign minister if I can come back to you. I mean Rex Tillerson who's actually often looked to as a voice of experience and calm possibly within the Trump administration said something which seemed to me quite startling in his testimony before the Senate. Where he said that the U.S. not only could not accept that the artificial islands that China has been building in the South China Sea but that they would potentially block access or tell the Chinese that they couldn't have access to those islands which sounds you know like something that could rapidly lead to a military confrontation. Is that how you read it? Well I was surprised when I read that and I think we all await rebated breath to see how he will square what he said with actions on the ground because if you take that literally it must mean a conflict it must mean war on the ground and that's not something which any of us wants and I don't think China or the United States want war either because if you think about all the discussion so far the key point here is that everyone wants economic development. What I believe President Trump wants is jobs and business prospects for his companies which is an entirely reasonable prospect. If you think about the interests of China China has done very well in the last you know since 1978 and it's been under the ages of the current regime. I mean it's not perfect but they've done very well and surely it is in their interest to continue to do well and with time time is on their side they'll do better, they'll become more strong they don't want a war and for the rest of us Japan, Korea and certainly for us in ASEAN we just want stability we want some level of predictability then we can adjust our policies I mean we are price takers so we have to adjust we have to accept the region as it is we can't shape we can't we don't determine the agenda of the world. I mean you say you make the point that China it's obviously not in their interest to have a war given how well things have been done for them. I'm certain it's not in their interest. But you also said to reiterate that there would be a war if America tried to blockade those islands I mean so you can't see China under any circumstances backing down on that. I don't think it will back down on that so the United States and China needs to have some quiet private and substantive discussions. Perhaps they should have those discussions in Singapore you're quite good at to convening these things. I'll be happy to host them. But I mean it doesn't matter where the point is there has to be a meeting of minds and deep appreciation of their permanent interests. And just a last question on this particular theme I mean you said in your first contribution that Singapore and the countries of Southeast Asia generally don't want to be forced to make a choice between these two giants. But can you feel that squeeze coming on? I mean I notice for example the way in which the Chinese impounded those Singaporean military transport things going through Hong Kong that seemed to me to be pressure on Singapore perhaps because they didn't like what you had said about the international court ruling in the Hague. That was how a lot of people interpreted it. Well I wouldn't interpret it that way. I'll come back to avoiding a zero sum game. And in fact you carefully pass the statements of the Chinese and I believe ultimately even of the Americans it's in no one's interest to force us to say you're either with us or against us. And the reason we're saying we're taking this position is because we say look let's look at the past couple of decades. We've been had we've had good open relations with everyone and we haven't had to beggar your neighbour. We haven't had to have conflict and we could all prosper together. So that's the point. I mean there's a clear track record and if you know we hope that the major powers will not draw the wrong conclusions from that. And I'm still an optimist that yes you can have strong leaders you can have leaders responding to populist pressures but at the end of the day they take a longer term view and they understand what the permanent interests are and that economics actually trumps security. Well we're at the world economic so I guess that's the right. So this is I'm preaching to the convertor. Yeah absolutely. Right. So the point is this what everyone wants all over the world at a people level are good jobs and they want to be paid fairly for that. What companies want are opportunities to expand. So we've got to find a way so that people can get jobs and companies can expand and we don't unfairly blame free trade. That's what I'm most worried about right now. Well the trade war rather than the actual social war. Yes it's a trade war because and even the TPP to us the real significance of the TPP is not just the minutiae of the the regulations and the agreement itself but to reflect that the United States has real skin in the game in the economic development across the Pacific and that this is best pursued in an open inclusive and balanced way without forcing people to take sides but just to look at their long term interests. In the past 70 years the Cold War started and ended without the nuclear weapon being fired in anger. Europe EU for all the criticisms against the EU the greatest achievement of the EU was to make war on the continent of Europe unthinkable. A continent which cost at least 60 million lives in the last century. That's great. If you look at the achievements of China and India in raising hundreds of millions from abject poverty to the middle class that's great. If you look at ASEAN we have 628 million people 2.5 trillion dollar economy we're now suppose we're about 7 ranked in the world but if you look at the demographic composition of ASEAN we are young in the next 20 to 30 years we can quadruple our economy to 10 trillion dollars we will be a major player we will be a major trading partner for China for India for the United States I mean we're actually in a good spot we just need to avoid unintended accidents and miscalculations. Minister Curt Pantrogan can I ask you about those two issues that we've been circling around discussing the fear of a trade war because you also stressed that you're overwhelming priorities economic development so the trade war but also the South China Sea we've talked about it about the possibility of a confrontational attitude from the Trump administration but equally many countries in southeast Asia were unhappy about this island building program so how do you strike let's start with the South China Sea I mean if a US blockade or whatever Tillerson was alluding to is not the answer what is the answer to the South China Sea island building First of all I think Trim Fwrath is very important as ASEAN and US and China they have to sit together you know to look for the best solution for everybody because I don't believe that everybody wants to see you know open war in that area because 5.1 trillion years dollar trade passing this area you know so everybody want to see peaceful solution on this issue so it's again ASEAN can play a big role in this area like Parfifian has said you see the size of ASEAN economy is huge you know so this is going to be also bigger in the near future so the role of ASEAN is very important while Indonesia the largest member of ASEAN I think we can play much more active role in the near future you know the leadership of Indonesia I think is very important and we believe right now we are successful to manage our economy to manage our democracy and we see also the maturity of our democracy in the same time we are consider quite successful to contain any radicalism issue within the country so then we can focus right now or give more attention to this issue because if something happened in South East China then could affect everybody nobody can win in this issue even China or America or ASEAN so ASEAN can play active role but if you understand also within the ASEAN it's not this is solid solid position on this particular issue so we propose basically America and China don't push Indonesia to be to take a side let Indonesia also to be independent together with ASEAN on this particular issue trade war I think is not a solution it's going to be negative for everybody see in China economy right now also is not as good as like the last five years and US also trying to move up and ASEAN I think quite okay let's maintain this issue to solve the problem with possible solution that's what we believe okay Professor Lee how do you feel about this question that Fyoichi also raised about the merging of economics and security issues the way in which Trump has said that they're no longer separate boxes that he's going to use one as a sort of trading issue with the other I do think that in this stage we also have the so-called liberal international order this may not be as liberal as Western Europe but we still have open economy we have multilateralism there so there is no very unilateral country even China is very multilateral and I always ask myself a question if there is going to be a war between the USA and China or USA and Russia who is going to win I mean the definition of definition of victory is very vague these days I mean you see the Middle East so you can never win a war and in this region I don't think there is one country that can actually win the war and to solve the problem by violence therefore liberal international order has become very very important and the problem is that with the arrival of Trump administration I should bless him on this inauguration day but I'm afraid I have to say a few criticisms about his administration I mean the irony is that the US under Trump administration is going to become increasingly is going to become increasingly unilateral and China is going to become increasingly multilateral I mean think about what Xi Jinping said a few days ago he sounded very reasonable he sounded very much liberal internationalist so that means there is going to be a leadership change in terms of soft power so each stage of the liberal international order is going to be led not by a very liberal America but by the Chinese Xi Jinping government and this is very ironic but just to put the opposite case to you because I guess that's kind of my job I mean some people would say well hang on you know Xi Jinping may talk a good game here in Davos about how multilateral he is but you actually look at China's behaviour they have been building fortified islands in the middle of the South China Sea they have territorial disputes with Japan they've been sending you know planes and ships into the east China seas and not the sort of gentle multilateralists that you will seem to be talking about well I mean most of the countries that are developing have lots of problems even you know Japan has territorial disputes with Russia South Korea has territorial disputes with Japan so these kind of sovereignty problems are always there but what we have to pay attention is whether or not China is going to become very unilateral using violence but China is going to use multilateral framework to attract attention of the international society and China actually is the main beneficiary of the liberal international order there's no other... but you couldn't call the island building a multilateral action that says unilateral as it gets unilateral multilateralism yeah but free trade is very very important to China that's all agree with that so you actually I mean you've had this tense situation in the east China sea for I mean I remember talking about it four years ago when Prime Minister Abe rather startled people by saying it was a bit like the situation before the first world war in Europe but it's kind of gone I don't know has it gone quiet or is it still as serious as it ever was I think it's very serious I think both Xi Jinping and Abe put the personal political stake on stabilizing a relationship since they met in Beijing at the margin of Abe meeting November 2014 so there are still strong incentive on both sides to stabilize a relationship maintain a relationship good relationship but I think that's fundamentally that that nothing has been settled and let me also mention a couple of things on this multilateralism and China Xi Jinping's you know state speech here I was certainly impressed with his speech his tone strong position to uphold that free trade and that's good that should be encouraged okay so it's very heartening to hear that but at the same time when China deals with South China Sea island issues nothing is multilateral the China has taken a strong position to maintain that bilateral on top of unilateral actions so I think when we talk about that a liberal international order it's not just about free trade I think it's about principle rule of law transparency governance human rights property rights and I think this system this principle is now being challenged not only by China but now by the United States and this is I think that where we are now at so I think that this is the most challenging to all of us so I'm not that sanguine about that a prospect of Asia's future even though I really would like to believe and how would you compare your mood say now to five, ten years ago to put it another way have you always been worried or did you used to think things were going okay and you're now thinking actually I really don't like the direction of I'm really much more worried particularly with the advent of Trump administration I think this could be the really that we have been talking about this game changer of words many many times in the past 10 years or so but this I think would be the biggest game changer if Trump's rhetoric will really translate into action and policies I think that could unravel the whole thing of the whole premise of US-China relationship liberal international order in Asia Pacific ASEAN for instance could be the first casualty in my view China has not hesitated to exert pressure on ASEAN particularly with regard to South China's issues by using the tactics to divide and rule perhaps put it more accurately divide and trade okay now the United States as Professor Ligan said has now seemed to resort to unilateral and bilateral trade deals over the multilateral okay so I think that ASEAN really I think would be under stress that it could even you know start to unravel that this ASEAN's centrality of the regional order ASEAN integration which has been that a foundation of peace and stability in the whole Asia East Asia okay well that's a very stark prospect so we have the Minister Foreign Affairs of Singapore here ASEAN Cunan Rathol could it I think you need to look at ASEAN in perspective we just celebrated 50 years if you think about its origin it was non-communist Southeast Asia at a time when we were worried remember there was a domino theory the rest of us would fall it's part that really was an extension of the Cold War anxiety since then we've incorporated you know Indochina and we now have 10 the point is I think people were far more critical in the past about ASEAN and they said well you guys take so long to do anything you depend on consensus nothing ever gets done it takes so long but you know frankly after the recent event we look at what's happened in EU and all that ASEAN as an association that recognizes great diversity and therefore that that obtaining consensus is essential better to get the pace and the sequence right rather than rush headlong into things the other thing about ASEAN and again if you look at our history we have always had big powers or colonial powers in our neighbourhood we've always had to make adjustments and find our way through this so this is not you know I'm not trivializing the challenges we face but the point I'm making is that we've been through a lot and in our own way as long as you remember that we are better off together we're better off in a consensual non-coercif relationship with one another we can still play a relevant role you're right if America and China has a trade war or actual shooting war ASEAN will be a grave casualty you're right so our interest and to the extent possible will be to try to persuade the two big powers don't fight about it there's no need to fight and one other point I want to make this is advice from Henry Kissinger who I see regularly and he said beware of final solutions and he said it's not and it's not related to the connotation with the not final solution but that because if anyone thinks he's got a final solution the problem then is that he's willing to go all out to fight to achieve that final solution I'm making this point in relation to all the sovereignty disputes there has always been problems of sovereignty in Asia but the point is that if you can put them aside wherever they can be put aside focus on building positives and on win-win outcomes this is a lot more that can be achieved without looking for a final solution and I think that's good advice and in that context then just briefly because I want to bring everyone the audience in as well what do you make of the suggestion that the Trump administration may revisit the one China policy on Taiwan again I want to wait a few hours for him to be actually in power and to judge by actions rather than by words we are uncomfortable frankly with taking an over Lee transactional approach to this and here I would give advice as an Asian as a Southeast Asian in Asia relationships credibility commitment and loyalty mean something you can't put a price tag on everything so that if you know if I had a chance to meet Trump with Mr Trump the President Trump soon I would advise him on that in in a you know in a respectful courthiers but piece of advice from a nation so don't put a price don't use the Taiwan it was a lever to try to get a better trade deal don't do things like that it does not do your friends any favors Minister before I ask the audience for some questions we were talking there about ASEAN and ASEAN unity and so on I mean sitting as an outsider in London just watching events from a distance it seems to me that a lot of countries in Southeast Asia have begun to tilt towards China you've so most obviously Duterte President Duterte the Philippines saying you know that China's the new power in the region and trying to threaten to kick the Americans out but equally Thailand Malaysia do you see I don't I wouldn't put Indonesia in that camp but do you see other countries in Southeast Asia beginning to move a bit more towards Beijing well I hope no break exit in ASEAN you know I think ASEAN is still very solid so far of course they have their own interests in some degree and yeah we understand that fully but we also believe that we still can achieve agreement among the ASEAN countries if you look at now ASEAN is going to be 50 years anniversary soon and we still believe the what are called the spirit of ASEAN could help us also to bring stability in this area we discussed earlier about the what's the benefit of trade war between U.S. and China I don't see any benefit for the everybody whether for China or U.S. or even for ASEAN ASEAN I think is going to be hurt very much so that's why we try very much you know to see the win-win solution in this particular issue number two let's see for the next one month what's going to happen in Washington I don't think and I don't believe that Trump can you know deliver everything what he been you know bring to the during his campaign time I don't believe that anti-Islam become you know become the reality because yeah simple as you know because he's going to invest in Indonesia his company not the U.S. 1.2 billion dollar are you going to raise anti-Islam while your money you know your your I didn't realize that the Trump Organization is about to make a 1.2 billion investment in yeah in Indonesia and that really yeah so you see you can imagine you put your money over there 1.2 billion dollars you're going to raise anti-Islam against Indonesia then it's going to be hurt your own personal investment so we have to rely on this one indication just one indication that I don't believe is going to be like this you know maybe he has a bad experience with some other you know area but I don't believe that with ASEAN he can have some difficulties and I still believe that he can we can see something different from the new administration soon so that's my prediction so look at Trump is a pragmatic personality and he can deal easily with somebody I don't believe that he can you know like confront with someone at the end I believe that look out for the interest of everybody if it is good interest for for America good interest for ASEAN and China I think they can go along with this one so I sense a split with the Southeast Asians inclined to say it'll probably be okay and so on and the Northeast Asians Japanese and South Koreans actually seem to be much more worried at least maybe from or maybe it's just a split between government ministers who have to be cautious and a partner who can actually say what they think you're right no I am optimistic and as I said look all of us politicians have to respond to our domestic constituencies foreign policy trade policy begins at home right then next question is what do you think President Trump needs to achieve for the sake of the American people he needs to create jobs he needs to provide opportunities for businesses both within and outside America and he needs to achieve security now these three objectives are not unique to the United States of America all of us want it and the point which Pat Lohud and I are trying to make is that I think or we believe all this can be achieved without a trade war without a shooting war and without unnecessarily pushing things to the edge in search of final solutions and in our own maybe it may be because it's Southeast Asia we're used to you know we do things maybe slowly maybe in a different way in a novel way we value relationships and the key thing here and this relates even to to the situation with the relationship between the United States and China is you need to build strategic trust without that sense of strategic trust everything else let me add a little bit by if you look at Indonesia the size of Indonesia Indonesia is the largest muslim population you cannot ignore it there are 230 million is that small number can you imagine like 0.5% convert to be radicals what's going to happen over there the size over one million something you know so Indonesia play a quite strong leader a strong role in this area and you've had people going over to Syria haven't you haven't you yeah we have but we contain we're successful so far to contain this one but then America cannot take it for granted you know that's the the position of Indonesia we are with ASEAN we work together with ASEAN I think our cooperation also with some member of ASEAN about radicalism counterterrorism is very good we have a very good relation with China we have a good relation with America so now what are we going to achieve basically are we going to zero some game or what are we going to see win-win and I believe with reading his you know his comment and his personality his family he's not going to take a zero some game I think his his solution is win-win you're cheering me up a little bit Professor Lee well I might have to say that I'm a bit more optimistic than Mr Funabashi Mr Funabashi particularly about China not really about Trump administration because we have been worried about China for many many years 30 years 40 years China has been deceiving China still remains as a socialist it's authoritarian country it has a lot of problems rise of China China threat but for the last past 30 years we have achieved economic growth we have achieved more open market we have achieved more free trade agreements and China contributed about 70 80 percent to global economic growth and if if China is benefiting from free trade free trade then China has to rely upon international institutions for for stability and predictability and transparency I think I've just seen the is that the 15 minute marker so I'm sorry about that I thought we had rather more time so I should definitely turn to the audience now yeah the gentleman at the back Ken Choi chosen the newspaper from Korea I'm a Korean I beg to differ to Professor Lee's point of view on North Korea I have a great respect for him we are good friends but I worry more about North Korea than Donald Trump's administration that's pure fact and I think most Koreans do that just simple question it's inconceivable to talk about Asian security without Chinese or American panelists here so I'm just going to throw you some devil's app thing most Chinese that I meet they always say that the root cause of this international conflict or problems are all because of the Americans I just want to ask oh each panelist what would you think and as minister from Singapore said it's inconceivable to talk about I mean think about a war in Europe and I think that's because they have a NATO it's a military organization is it possible that there is some sort of a E-Tome East Asian treaty organization things like that in Asia in order to eradicate any possibility of war thanks two good questions let me take a couple more book so we get more people with a chance to contribute hands anywhere so there's some people sitting behind me who I can't see yeah Lalli Weymouth I could I ask the gentleman from South Korea slightly off the path question I could I ask you a bit about how you see the future of your country's leadership yeah the internal political crisis in South Korea and the gentleman here is a third question Shinji Kitaoka president of Japan's international cooperation agency and also professor at a military school of Tokyo University I have a couple of questions one is that certainly the win-win game is a desirable it's a must but actually it is possible only your counterpart is hoping the same way if the other side is not willing to be in a win-win game what then what would you do secondly certainly as Mr Funabash pointed out best hope is the continuation of the U.S. Japan security treaty as well as the U.S. Korean security treaty but in order to maintain those treaties what about the division of labor between those U.S. Japan and U.S. and Korea are there any anything necessary to change okay so I guess that's the old issue of burden sharing should Japan and South Korea be doing more which obviously is very much at the forefront of Mr Trump's mind professor Lee since you asked directly about the situation in South Korea itself do you want to take that one and also the burden sharing issue should South Korea be doing more to assuage Trump well with regard to the future of my country South Korea I think there is going to be definitely a transfer of power from the current ruling party toward the opposition party I don't know who is going to be the next president but people are fed up with the so-called the Anselm regime which is the old system it is very likely that the progressive party is going to be the next government and what that means is that it's going to be somewhat more transparent parent less authoritarian and it's going to be somewhat more future oriented but what I really want to see is a generational change rather than just a power change secondly about the Yto question I think in East Asia it is almost impossible to have a multilateral security framework because we have Russia, China, Japan and the USA and they are not East Asian powers they are global powers and if we have a multilateral framework there it's going to be a global framework and that is not possible but in Australia I hope you can do a lot of you know division of labour but we have history issue and that really prevent us from cooperation what what Yoichi I mean what I mean obviously Prime Minister Abe has been trying to sort of widen the scope of what Japan can do in a military sense but what are the domestic constraints on him if Trump comes in and says look guys you've got to spend more you've got to do more well I think the Abe administration enacted security related bills two years ago to allow Japan to do more proactive contribution to international peacemaking keeping by mobilising the military assets Japanese military assets so that was first I think the right direction my view but I think that Japan can do and should do more I think first perhaps Japan really should play a sort of intermediary and even facilitate a role to getting in order to get the United States engaged in the region by strengthening us for instance that civilian coast guard capability in south south east Asian countries such as Philippine, Vietnam and Indonesia and the others which actually Japan already has initiated that that process also I think Indonesia and Australia actually now has agreed to proceed joint naval patrol in South China Sea I don't think it has been activated but I think that it's a great potential so I think that's gradually that Asian countries are now exploring how to really pursue that autonomous way to strengthen that peace and security a mechanism in this region in other words Asianizing that efforts I think that's I think in the right way okay further questions anyone yeah over here and then at the back and then the gentleman here gosh there's so many but to the person in my direct line of sight had an advantage I'm afraid Lee Howell the World Economic Forum historically energy a more specifically energy security has played an important role and really what is in many ways sources of potential conflicts or actually led to conflict but that the energy story is changing and it's changing globally and it's also obviously changing in the Middle East but predominantly I would reflect on what's happened in US how do you think that will change some of the the uncertainty or anxiety around what you're discussing how do you factor in the energy picture here there was a gentleman just look back there against the wall hi i'm Mokund Rajan from the Tata Group of India I was just curious is the other large emerging power in the Asian region to the panellist see a role for India to play in regional security that's been talked about building out blue water navy in India okay and just here hi my name is Anil Bakri from Indonesia coming from business sector this geopolitical instability and uncertainty is certainly not a good thing and not sustainable so how long do you think the US and China tension will be there until they find new equilibrium thank you yes well uh yeah last one just just here okay two more one one man one man I'm Yoshi Hori of Global Japan I have a question to professor Lee you mentioned about history however Japan and Korea has agreed upon on comfort women issue as final and irreversible and however the issue is coming back again and there was a statue being built in front of the Pusan council and the and the ambassador has been coming coming back to Japan how can we solve the issue should have been final and irreversible and we should look for the future and what is your comment okay last one chap over here yes my name is Tadash a man of CEO of Japan Bank of International Cooperation one quick comments on China's policy and also one question to the both minister from South East Asia my comments on China policy is that despite very much proactive speech by President Xi Jinping there China is pursuing their own national interest they are not mixed up the issues between trade and security therefore that now that they are not Mr Xi Jinping's very well calculated to gain something from the uncertainty created by John Trump so that he made a spread on the impression of a pro trade free trade China to take occasion of world currency world economy forum so my question is that what China did in maritime security issue in South China Sea with Asian countries what China did is that tried to make the the Biden rule in Asian country there is a calcium of the influence over Cambodia now to not be created a uniform the position an entire asian they tried to make the Biden rule so how do you see that the position with China is counterpart from your viewpoint okay well look we've got five excellent questions and less than five minutes I don't think anybody's going to be able to answer all of them completely so perhaps you can pick one of the issues that that's been raised and also make some closing comments so perhaps I'll go in reverse orders and end this time with foreign minister Balakrishnan so Yoichi do you want to pick up on some of those points some of you talked about energy about yeah certainly I would like to pick up Lee Howard's inquiry about the energy politics let me just confine that issue to Japan's case I think I have and Putin met in Japan most recently last month and one of that factors which really in a gravity that both countries to search for more a rapprochement is energy factor increasingly the world has seen the Asia particularly has seen that sea lane defence and energy security being challenged by say melting down you know Middle East as well as that militarisation of South China Sea so from Japanese energy security plan as point of views it's almost imperative for them to really seek to that diversify that energy sources and that Russia is you know very much in good position to provide that particularly the gas in LNG form for Japan and already 8% of Japan's energy fossil energy I should say has come now from Russia and Russia actually has proved to be very stable reliable supplier okay Professor Lee you are asked about the revival of the comfort women issues so if you want to briefly address that but also perhaps have a concluding comment to all in a minute okay the comfort women issue when it was announced by the foreign ministry everybody was taken aback because Parklandale administration had been very hostile toward Japan but all of a sudden they came up with this agreement so from the start there was a legitimacy problem so people were not really you know for the agreement and secondly the Japanese approach toward this issue is very much legal and very much economic to a certain extent and South Korea approach is not only legal but also attitudinal you know political so really wanted to see you know very sincere you know apology from the Japanese counterpart and that I mean in the mind of South Korean people that seems to be missing I know that you have different opinion but that is the situation in South Korea and I want to add my you know comments with this note I do think that America will come back to the liberal international order Donald Trump will be re-socialised into the liberal international order so it's going to be okay good good well that's nice to end on a positive note minister you know there are a variety of issues raised but this question of how long this US-China thing is going to keep bubbling you were asked by your compatriot what's your answer to him? we should ask the fortune teller but they were well I think they should consider their own domestic economy number one I believe and I think excuse me Trump's promise time to time to create job opportunity in between the country you know so if something happened between China and and US I don't think they can create job opportunity within the country so they look for resolution I don't believe this is going to be like this for a long time maybe they can be like you know certain level of tension but I don't believe they're going to be you know to the level of open trade war between even the war conflict open conflict in the South China Sea so I still very confident that they can look for the solution win-win solution for this issue okay foreign minister Balakrishnan your last words and also we were correctly reminded that we hadn't mentioned India as a major player if you could just have a couple of thoughts on that as well yes I'm a believer in real polity if we allow ourselves to be intimidated if we allow ourselves to be divided if we allow ourselves to be distracted from economic growth good jobs and prospects and then we deserve our fate that's first thing second thing is to understand that big powers have a standard playbook and everything which they're doing now is not really new or novel but the way I approach it it's first amongst my own brothers and sisters in ASEAN so remind everyone that it is in our own interests to stick together to maintain neutrality to expand our strategic options rather than to be divided and broken down into a series of vessel states and that's eminently rational similarly when I meet the Americans or when I meet the Chinese I also tell them yes you can play this game but it is in your own interests to have ASEAN intact ASEAN centrality so that you don't have some yes some may go with you but others will go the other way it's not in your interests for ASEAN to be broken up and to play into rival factions so the point again is to focus on long-term interests and I want to come back to the team because it addresses the point on India as well Southeast Asia geographically has always been at the crossroads or cross maritime routes between China and Japan on one hand India and Europe on the other hand and now in the globalized world America is involved as well as far as Singapore is concerned we believe in hosting everyone yes the American navy calls on Singapore ports so does the Chinese navy and in due time so will the Indian navy and as far as we're concerned the more the merrier because I come back to this point that it is in our own long-term interests to have an open and inclusive architecture and if we can focus on that the security will become a second order question it's only if we lose sight of the long-term permanent interests then we're likely to get into very very choppy matters now I don't think anyone can give you a timeline as to when we'll see blue skies and placid seas again but I don't think that we should be unnecessarily gloomy or worse create self-fulfilling prophecies so that people think they have no choice but to react over defensively and there's no room for a deal no room for alignment even if it's only temporary okay well you have a very calming bedside manner which is appropriate for a former doctor so thank you very much to the whole panel and to the audience okay cheers come on thank you